User talk:North Shoreman/Archive 1

Welcome...

Hello, North Shoreman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Xiner (talk, email) 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner (talk, email) 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Declaration of Independence

I have reported that single-purpose vandal to an admin for proper "disposal". Wahkeenah 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom (North Shoreman) 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He be gone. Wahkeenah 15:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism warnings

Hello, fellow vandalism fighter! I've seen your Username turning up a lot recently on articles we both keep an eye on (such as Fugitive Slave Law of 1850). Seeing as you obviously care about vandalism, I'd like to suggest that when you've finished reverting the bad edit(s) it's really good to follow up by posting a notice or warning on the miscreant's talk page. I try to do this whenever possible, especially when the user has gone beyond a simple, relatively harmless "nonsense edit". There is a whole array of such warnings, which are tailored to the degree and type of vandalism. It's really important to put people on notice so they will think twice before doing further vandalism; and also, to document what they've done for WP admins, who can impose a block of their editing privileges. Regards, Cgingold 23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the tip -- I am slowly figuring out the many nuances of wikipedia editing and the intricacies of the wikipedia bureaucracy. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!

Just wanted to congratulate you on the marvelous work on Doughface! I just did a tiny polish, but that's a lovely, lovely article. (I guessing you wrote it in Microsoft Word and then pasted it in the 'pedia? The curly quotes in Word don't transfer all that well to Wikipedia, which can, in normal circumstances totally support curly quotes, but from Word they end up kind of freaky looking.) ANYWAY, great job, and I'm looking forward to any changes you might make to Wilmot Proviso--when I was a kid it was the last article in one volume of my encyclopedia, and I always thought it was a delightful, mellifluous-y name for a bit of legislation. jengod 03:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments and the tip.Tom (North Shoreman) 12:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmot Proviso

I liked the Wilmot Proviso article and your civil war work. Email me at rjensen@uic.edu Rjensen 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Confederate

Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to work with you to make this a good article. In the end, we both have the same goal: an excellent article. But to paraphrase WP:LIST, lists regarding people, especially in a negative view, should only have the highest standard of sources. I'm looking in to the sources you provided, but I'd rather discuss it on the talk page, and decide what to do there. --Milton 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) ALSO: Kudos on your excellent contribution to other articles in a similar vein. --Milton 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckahoe-Cohee

Just a note to thank you for your assistance in formating my article on Tuckahoe-Cohee. This has been my first and only effort so far on Wikipedia and I appreciate all the help I can get. I will continue to try to spread this article by up and down links to existing articles, because I think this rather antique concept of have-vs-havenot tuckahoe-vs-cohee cultural conflict can be useful as a paradigm in explaining some of American history up to and including the Civil War.

Lee Mathers Gwyncann 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Confederate government of Kentucky

I have made an attempt to address your comments regarding my FA nom of Confederate government of Kentucky. I hope you will eventually be able to support this article. Please let me know what other changes need to be made. Acdixon 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting your opinion of my latest attempt to garner your support for Confederate government of Kentucky's FA nomination. Sorry to be such a pest, but I find it likely that your vote may decide the consensus. Acdixon 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's talk page for continued discussion. Please do update the FA nom to show that we are still working on the article. Acdixon 14:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Shoreman, Acdixon and I would appreciate it if you could please take the time to review Confederate Government of Kentucky and update your comments regarding the FA nomination of the said article. We would like the article's nomination to reflect that changes have been made and what your current opinion on the article's nomination is. If there are questions or concerns, you can feel free to contact me or Acdixon. Thank you in advance for your timely response. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butt In Line

No problem, Sir. I'm sure it wasn't intended. Happy editing! – Watchtower Sentinel 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nullification

Sorry to see that you have become bogged down with your admirable Nullification Crisis page. I don't have much experience with that sort of thing but suspect the best thing is to cast it as a Wikipedia policy issue. If there is a book that says 1830 South Carolinian Nullifiers smoked marijuana, then it stays in the article. If there is no such book (as I suspect), it is excluded by Wikipedia policy of No Original Research and you can take firmer steps. Good luck! Hughespj 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American School

I have provided some quotes you seemed to have missed when looking at Linds works. What do you say of page 24 of "Lincoln's"? Provide what on that page you consider, NOT, indicating the source is correct. I do not see it. --Northmeister 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I came off wrong, I apologize. The contentious atmosphere at American School leads me to question those who pose. You have both books? - please respond to my questions to establish actual intellectual discussion on the books. --Northmeister 13:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Burr and Secession

Wondering if you haf a problem with and deleted that entry on secession because it is NOT sourced? Or is there some other reason. It's an interesting factoid, but whether or not adds much to article is questionable. Carol Moore 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Emancipation Proclamation

I was about to warn you, then I realized what happened. I see you reverted the page to the right version! Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican War

Please stop with your repeated vandalism attempts regarding the article about the Mexican War. If you have an issue with the content of the article please refer to the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.201.56.15 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the issue is covered on the talk page. An effort to change the name of the article, as you want to do, was defeated when consensus was not reached.Tom (North Shoreman) 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxation without Representation

Erm, my edit was not vandalism. I was removing a clear bias against the American Revolutionaries in the article...

Invitation

Hi, its been somewhere close to a month since we last communicated. I'd like to officially invite you over to the American School article once more to help out with your thoughts on references and structure or where this article should go in the future. I've begun cleanup considering your past comments and would find it very helpful if you would offer further advice on the article; especially since you have some of the material, as do I, that the article references. Would like to get this article up to par with Wikipedia standards. --Northmeister 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War GA sweeps review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed American Civil War and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention this to you since you are a significant contributor to the page and, if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning the lead and citation templates & needs about 20 more inline citations for quotes, numbers, etc. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Abraham Lincoln

I suggest we leave the user in question to her ... umm ... "theories" about Lincoln. The facts are what they are. If she starts pushing her anti-Lincoln POV (I mean, "genocidal"?!?), on the article, then we step in and clean it up. The part she's questioning is completely uncontroversial except to the fringiest of the fringe. Could she canvas for support amongst her friends? Sure. But those who watch Lincoln to keep it free of such tripe would speak up at that point, I think. Anyways, I get the impression that further discourse with her is akin to talking to a broken record player. "Those sources don't say that. Those sources aren't reliable. The word "outspoken" never appears in that source." Over and over. As such, I recommend that we withdraw from the talk page, as she's simply not interested in any evidence to the contrary of her opinion, and simply revert her disruptive edits, if she chooses to make ones similar to last evening, as they come. If she continues, I may open a mediation cabal case, though, as this is wasting valuable time I could be working on Tom Dula or on getting To Kill a Mockingbird from GA to FA. K. Scott Bailey 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Lee

Hey friend, it looks like you mistook my edit of the Robert E. Lee page for vandalism. I actually removed a four-letter word that someone had put in some formatting code at the top of the page. I realize that I didn't completely fix the article (I think the formatting was still broken), but I certainly didn't vandalize it. 27 Nov. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.17.153 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me extend my humblest apologies. I have removed the vandalism warning. Two IP editors before you had vandalized the article, and I inadvertently placed a warning on your talk page instead of one of the others. Thanks for your own efforts in removing vandalism from the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln

DONE! Thank you for bring this to my attention. I just took care of it, and fixed it up a lot! Thanks--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Winchester in Civil War Page

North Shoreman, why do you keep overwriting my work on my hometown wiki-page with your personal and biased POV on the Civil War? The word "invasion" is defined as an entrance by an organization especially by an army (do some research and look it up). By the way, neither President Lincoln, nor any other president has ever had authorization constitutionally to raise an army to enter any state within our own country. That act is prohibited by the consitution. Regardless, this is what he did. Likewise, Lee's ANV invaded the Union federation on several occasions. This act, ironically, was not prohibited by the CSA consitution, and was endorsed by its congress, and so was legal. We invaded Iwo Jima in World War 2. We invaded Normandy likewise. (Both legal invasions). "Invasion" is simply a military descriptive term, and we used this term extensively in Marine Corps University at Quantico, Virginia where I was a USMC C2 doctrines instructor for 5 years. Therefore as a trained US Gov military professional and teacher in the USMC, I am hereby educating you on the correct english usage of the word "invasion" or "invade" by the U.S. Government in it's professional-level military education system. Let's get Wikipedia on-board in its military articles by using terminology in that same consistent way. And to be technically correct, Linconl did not raise an Army to "recapture forts". If that was true, which its not, then McClellan's army would have proceeded straight to those forts needing capturing. But regardless of authorization or objective, the entrance of an army into a location with intent to use force if necessary, whether legal or illegal, is academically called an "invasion" regardless of the moral merits or lack thereof. Therefore, I will return the page I created to its originally worded condition. Grayghost01 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunning

This item will be removed unless you can provide a reliable cite that explicitly links this to Dunning."Princeton University historian James M. McPherson wrote that the accepted "facts" at the start of the 20th century "supported the prevalent belief in the mental inferiority of black people" and this "conservative interpretation dominated Civil War historiography for many years." The linking of this to Dunning is original research, and such is not permitted under the WP guidelines. I will remove it within 24 hours for my original posting on Dunning School's Talk Page. I inform as a courtesy since I now see you are interested in editing this article. Please join me on the talk page to discuss this. If not I will assume that you agree that this is original research and should be removed. Cordially, Die4Dixie 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Slavery talk page

In reviewing the edit history of Dunning School , I see that I mistook an edit form a different editor to be one of yours. I do apologize for the gross mischaracterization of your edit on the Dunning School page. It is inexcusable, and I have tried to strike through the comment. Upon careful reflection, I see that you are a good faith editor, and that I have been obnoxious. I think it is fair to say that I disagree with you on some points, unless the moment pushed you to say things that you might not have, as it did me. I do stand by my assertion that more people are interested in the salacious aspects of slavery depictions, as well as the more egregious abuses that occurred. This is not necessarily historians, but I more referred to Wikipedia editors. An uncomfortable fact is that there where those who were treated well and kindly. This doesn't validate the institution. If you can work the editing tools to strike through my last comment on the slavery talkpage,and the other specific one on Dunning School Talk, I would be grateful and indebted. Again, my sincerest apologies.Die4Dixie 02:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nullification Crisis

Yes, the August 15th version of the lead section would be fine with me - I think that just about hits the limit for the length of a lead section, but it's within that limit (in my opinion). If other editors opposed the reduction in length, I'll be happy to help out. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You seem to be in charge at the Lincoln article. Do you have any problem with me inserting this image in "cultural depictions"?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reconstruction

why do you keep goofing with it, that statement was from a controversial source for one, and for another, the statement is opinion, not all african-americans agree with you, suggest you discuss it if you are so determined.

P.S. why in the world do you care if lincoln was gay, hes been dead for at least 140 years, so what evidence does a few letters make, and you cant really judge that worth a darn if youve never met them. anyways, its still a sin even if he was gay, so it doesnt change anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbuckshot (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reconstruction, again

in regard to the 3RR thingy fully documented statement, the data is:

a) unproveable for all cases

b) WP:NPOV (neutral point of view - the authors opinion is not the only one, and cannot be proven fact)

c) leading literature, says who?, what defines the leeding work on that era, since that too cannot be proven

d) you too are guilty of WP:3RR, but beyond that, lets settle this before bugging admins

e) who makes you the authority on what comes or goes in an artical, the poor sucker above is proof of that, you don't have to bloody ask before editing, especially since your not even an admin. it sounds to me like you are dominating/hoarding control of artical, who do you think you are andrew jackson (kidding about the jackson thing, figured as a history buff youd get it (-: )

f) what makes your source neutral and what makes your declaration of its credibility credible

Colonel Buckshot, aka Otto Von Bismarck

P.S. i did revert the title from '1867 election' to 'Election of 1867', but i left the other alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbuckshot (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding on the discussion page of the actual article -- please do the same. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Lowndes Yancey

Hi Tom, thanks for your efforts on a very interesting article! As soon as you update the introduction, add an infobox and fix the pictures I will award it GA status. Well done! --haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, I have passed William Lowndes Yancey as a Good Article. Top work. Please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the backlog. --haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, Tom. I enjoyed reading it. I think I might help out with the push to bring this article to FA status. I wrote an article about another Fire Eater, Thomas C. Hindman. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, but are you finished with Trent Affair? If you are, you should consider submitting it for GA status. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: Are Harvard-style references always provided at the end of paragraphs, or was that something you decided to do? I usually do references every 2-3 lines. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. I'll stick with that referencing format then. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of "Spreading the pro-slavery message", you wrote that the convention "adjourned and reconvened in Baltimore on June 18, 1860." Later on, you say "Southern representatives reconvened in Baltimore on June 18, 1860..." I just wanted to know if the second date was correct. It seemed it bit awkward that you referred to both dates in their entire date/year form. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Confederate Issue

It's clear to me that Sf46 will not agree to any page that doesn't include some sort of vague pronouncement of blacks fighting in the Confederacy before March 1865. Frankly, his contributions are non-existent to the article vis a vis the amount he talks about it. Should we just soldier on, and ignore his edits or what? I'm unsure of what exactly to do going forward. SiberioS (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that Sf46 is trying to get around the forking issue by merely cutting and pasting old stuff into the Confederate Navy as well as the Confederate States Marine Corps article. I'll lodge my opinion on the various talk pages, and tommorrow, go grab Wiley's Southern Negroe and start sourcing and rewriting some of that stuff. SiberioS (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned an edit of yours in an RfA discussion

FYI. User:Gwen Gale is standing for the mop. BusterD (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Tom. She might have won me over by just fessing up and saying something contrite. As another editor pointed out, she does seem to show genuine contrition when she discovers she's in error, but in this process, IMHO, she's convinced her actions were correct, and that ours were malodorous in some way. The more she tried to defend herself by accusing others, the tighter the vote became. She may prevail here, and then we've got to internalize another less than trustworthy mopper. The content issue merely provided a platform for behavior examination. The email thing always felt wrong, however minor. I wish I could get technical help for that answer. At the time, seeing what had gone on previously in AL talk, I was nervous that any email I read, replied to, or commented on from Gwen might be used to color me in some way. As it was, I never got a system email from Gwen, so my nervousness was unnecessary (as so often is the case). BusterD (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in my RfA!

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable concerns about the need to walk away from a hopeless disagreement sooner than I did. I also understand how not doing this diminished everyone's trust in me (needlessly, but how could you know?). Meanwhile I lost trust in BusterD and Rklawton at the time and I regret that. I'll take heed of all these concerns and address them. Thanks for being so exemplary throughout. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp Act

The missing paragraphs about the Sons of Liberty were not deleted they were moved to the Sons of Liberty article. While these paragraphs are relevant, I did not feel that these two paragraphs are of high importance to an article about an act of parliament. If someone desires to learn more about the Sons of Liberty they can click on the link. Having duplicate content in two articles creates a maintenance problem. BradMajors (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent postings could be interpreted as a personal attack rather than a discussion of the merits of the proposal. BradMajors (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in utilizing the services on Wikipedia of a neutral third party facilitator or mediator? BradMajors (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. BradMajors (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove templates from articles until an consensus has been reached. BradMajors (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War...

My edit had nothing to do with the debate but the writing. The article says Missouri forms a Unionist government. Thereon the article says:

"Union supporters in the far northwestern counties of Virginia opposed secession and formed a pro-Union government in Wheeling shortly after Virginia's 1861 declaration of secession from the U.S. They then organized a vote on October 24, 1861 to approve a secession from Virginia, and were admitted to the Union as the new state of West Virginia on June 20, 1863, eventually composed of 50 former counties of Virginia. The vote was poorly attended and only token votes appeared in many counties that had supported Virginia's secession, some giving no vote at all,[47][48] and both before and after admission to statehood, there were disputes over the boundary between West Virginia and Virginia, and the legality of the vote."

I think the writing can be better as West Virgina's opposition to secession is obvious because (1) the article says Missouri formed a Unionist government shortly before, and (2) West Virgina formed a pro union government which obviously sends the message they are opposed to secession. If it is not clear enough from there, it becomes clear with the bold line. The paragraph makes it clear West Virginia opposed secession about three times. I'd like to change the paragraph to something like this:

"Shortly after Virginia's 1861 declaration of secession from the U.S., Union supporters in the far northwestern counties of Virginia organized a vote on October 24, 1861 to approve a secession from Virginia. They were admitted to the Union as the new state of West Virginia on June 20, 1863. West Virginia eventually composed of fifty former counties of Virginia. The vote was poorly attended and only token votes appeared in many counties that had supported Virginia's secession, some giving no vote at all,[47][48] and both before and after admission to statehood, there were disputes over the boundary between West Virginia and Virginia, and the legality of the vote."

By writing it this way I was also able to eliminate two sentences. We have to have respect a reader's time and cut down any letter or word we can. I find when editors try to make something clear they just make it clattered, confusing and prolonging.

GordonUS (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

What facts did I omit? As for the sentences you say present a very clear POV, I didn't even touch them. I only changed the first two sentences. I only included them to show what paragraph I was talking about. If you feel something is POV don't hesitate to change it. I encourage you to do so. Afterall, that is what Wikipedia is all about.

GordonUS (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Sure, go right ahead. :)

GordonUS (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise. Don't mean to hold you up.

GordonUS (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, but somewhere in the interaction the reflist on ACW main page got messed up. Right after ref#47 where you guys have been working. Tom, would you give this a quick look? You'll see the problem right away. BusterD (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Just a note to let you know a WQA was filed about you here. [1] It's been dismissed because it's not a WQA issue (see the post for details) but I'm letting you know about it because it doesn't appear you were told before. Best,DanielEng (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on History of the United States (1776–1789)

I didn't revert it because I thought it was relevant, can you tell me how it wasn't? Of course you don't have to... TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a historian myself, so I couldn't tell if this was serious edit or not. I was just curious, thanks for the reply. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP edits on ACW articles mostly vandalism...different approach? =

I've been watching you reverting the many IP vandals and have been doing some myself on watched pages, but this reminds me of swatting mosquitoes in a swamp--I don't think we are going to make a dent in them, but our arms will soon be tired and bloody from the effort. In the spirit of going after the source I just applied for semi-protection to the Emancipation Proclamation article requesting a week. I hope that will slow some of the anonymous vandalism after the expiration. Rather than just trying to warn IP addresses and revert. Wouldn't wiki benefit more if we checked say the last 10 unique IP address edits to determine how many were reverted for vandalism? If it is something north of 75% (or similar) then ask for a week of semi-protection. If that doesn't work, then a month, and after that six months or indefinite?

I've also inquired about whether or not a bot might be used to look for the frequent IP vandalism pattern with reverts and automatically semi-protect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy I doubt that will go anywhere, but it is what I would do to increase the quality and quantity of meaningful edits. Red Harvest (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE

Do you realize what you have written? "Obtaining the amount of readable prose is a simple process that can be done in less than a minute." Who has a minute? The average attention span on the internet is 8 seconds. While I admit it often takes me an hour to make one edit, I certainly don't want to be distracted by spending a minute making a nonsense calculation when I can just look in the edit window and see that it says "This page is 38 kilobytes long." for example which tells me everything I need to know about the page length - that it is too long. There are four reasons for limiting the size of a page, and readable prose is only one small part, and not a very important part. Byte count is the most important part and that is the number that is trivially displayed and is the number that should always be used in making decisions on article length. It isn't possible to have an article less than 30 kB that has more than 6,000 words because even if it had no links and no references 6,000 times 5 characters per word equals 30,000 bytes. The guidelines are messed up, and I can see why - they have always referred to byte count and someone has been falsely pushing readable prose, and changed the criteria without changing the limits - if you really wanted to use readable prose you would have to divide your limits by about a factor of three to accommodate the difference and not only that wasn't done, but it both introduces a really hard to calculate variable, but also ignores all of the other factors that are important in limiting article size. You do realize I hope that I'm only trying to tell all of you editors that you are really making a big mistake. One that is easily fixed. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article size

Please stop reverting on Wikipedia:Article size, per the edit warring policy. If a revert is needed, I am sure someone else will do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your first revert was reasonable and demonstrated your opinion on the matter. Reverting a second time wasn't necessary, as there is no reason to rush to undo the change, and you had already made your viewpoint clear. I warned all three editors who have been reverting on that page.

On my talk page, you said 'I hardly see how reverting a change made that is contrary to the majority opinion in an ongoing discussion constitutes an edit war on my behalf.' This is where you are misunderstanding things. There is no exception that allows a single editor to repeatedly revert back to the majority opinion. The idea behind the edit warring policy is that edit warring is inherently bad, so even if you are completely correct, you still have avoid excessive reverting. Someone else will come along to revert the edit if it really needs to be reverted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THis whole thing is a farce.

This whole thing about the "worldview" of the American Revolution War has hit absolute farce, and is on the same level of the people who keep insisting on changing the American Civil War to whatever name they've decided. I don't doubt, of course, that the term will end up staying and the tag removed. But a whole lot of frustrating back and forth will be spilt over it. SiberioS (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you must remember that quite a few folks in other (especially British Commonwealth) countries are brought up being taught about "The Great American Rebellion" in schools. There are quite a few parallels between that war and the American Civil War, at least in terms of polarization of viewpoints. Sf46 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of Confederation

I've used up my 3 reverts for the day there - up to others now --JimWae (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil has violated WP:3rr --JimWae (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate States of America

This IP belongs to a public library. There may or may not be further unconstructive edits coming from it. Impossible for me to know. Sorry for the trouble. 128.32.77.88 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhilLiberty, et al

My first impulse would be to report him to WP:AN3, which is a specific noticeboard for 3rr violations. I've got a few other projects on tap, but I'll nip over later and have a look - if disruption continues, though, and most especially if multiple IP editors get in on the act, then I'd recommend a request for page protection at WP:RPP. Hope this helps, and I'll try toget over there later today. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've warned him again; he isn't near edit warring at present, but he's following the same pattern of behavior, which needs to stop. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remini and Andrew Jackson

I researched the Remini book into the citations and one quotes andrew Jackson as referring to the Seminoles as a "diseas to be cut out" in a letter to Sherman. This shows a clear hatred for the Natives of Florida. Also on a History channel special on Jackson a an history professor doctorate of one of the western states of Native American descent refers to Jackson as America's Hitler and discusses how a many Native Americans today will not accept $20 bills. After seeing that special it is clear to me that to maintain a NPOV the Andrew Jackson article section on Indian removal has to include some harsher language. Alatari (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example Historical Marker at Point of Rocks, MD

see: http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=743

"The opening sentence states "In mid-June 1863, with rumors of a pending reinvasion of Maryland by Confederate forces, most Baltimore and Ohio trains stopped running past here."

Thus, the non-conquest oriented military movements by Lee into Maryland are called "invasions" by official govnernment signage. Thus, in keeping with national historical marker language idioms, the neutral way to describe any border crossings by one side into the other is by the word "invasion". Similarly, our non-conquest military movement on to the coast of France in 1944 was called the Normandy invasion. See this link, where the United States Navy (also part of our government) refers to it as Normandy Invasion, June 1944. (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-eur/normandy/normandy.htm)

Does that suffice as sufficient proof of government-created historical literature using this military word? Thus, will you defer the point, and allow the wiki articles to follow the same idioms, and agree that it is, indeed a NPOV to do so?

I can provide literally hundreds of other examples, if necessary.

Thanks, The Gray Ghost (Grayghost01 (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Just an FYI

Although the charges are baseless, you were reported on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI on sensitive issues and articles for the American Civil War by User:Grayghost01, in case you are interested in responding there. older ≠ wiser 10:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st Vandalism Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. .

Topic: Virginia in the American Civil War

Grayghost01 (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom - I think nobody in their right mind would consider these edits vandalism, and these posts by Grayghost amount to a personal attack. I am having a problem with this editor at Great Train Raid of 1861 too --JimWae (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Vandalism Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Virginia in the American Civil War. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

page is under construction. Leave out the news articles which are off topic and wrong level of detail. Start a new page with your blog-oriented rants, but leave the Virginia page alone, unless you care to contribute helpful materials. "Sourced" trivia is not acceptable.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally frivolous -- this is a content dispute addressed on the talk page and Grayghost is rapidly approaching a 3RR violation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Free State/Slave State articles

Hi Tom, I noticed that you had made some constructive edits on these pages--would love to get your feedback on a proposed merge. Cheakamus (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]